Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-22 01:05:59
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> Again, I don't see the point of changing to a random name.
I've been folllowing this for its entertainment value.
But one thing I'm REALLY not getting. Is this new build
system going to be:
a) same interface/language as the current bjam with a different
b) a new interface/language
c) a backwards compatible interface with an enhanced capability.
If it's a) it should be bjam.exe
if it's b) it should have a new name.
if it's c) them maybe it should be called bjamv3.
But the if its a) why bother re-writing it.
I'm also intrigued by the statement that it's going to be
written in python. It seems contrary to the whole
boost idea. That we love C++ because it is the
most effective way to make fast and powerful
programs. Why would we want to use anything else here.
If the build system is going to use scripts built
in python - then to me it's not bjam so you might
as well give it a whole new name.
I still have no idea what this new build system
is going to look like. But then I still can't figure
out how the current one works.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk